Individualist Anarchism =/= Libertarianism

By Wendy McElroy

Exclusive to The Libertarian Enterprise

In America of the late 19th century, individualist anarchism and
libertarianism were synonyms. Today, it is commonplace to assume that
few differences exist between individualist anarchists and
libertarianists and that such differences can be argued out when we
are closer to freedom. Yet a deep ideological schism lies between the
two political positions. It is not so deep as to prevent goodwill
and active co-operation on shared goals, but the differences between
individualist anarchism and libertarianism are at least as
significant as their similarities. Indeed, in many cases, both the
goals and strategy of current libertarianism are antagonistic to
individualist anarchism.
To understand the nature of the current ideological split, it is
useful to view a bit of the background of individualist anarchism,
from which libertarianism sprang. And to liken the current schism to
another one which occurred in the 19th century.
In 1833, the American libertarian Josiah Warren issued The
Peaceful Revolutionist which was the first anarchist periodical ever
published. Warren's two central principles defined 19th century
individualist anarchism. They were: the Sovereignty of the
Individual; and, Cost is the Limit of Price, also known as the labor
theory of value.
Sovereignty of the Individual is often called 'self-ownership'.
Self-ownership refers to the moral claim that every human being has
to his or her own body. As a principle, it denies that anyone has a
right to power over the life of another peaceful and unconsenting
human being.
'Cost the Limit of Price' -- or
the labor theory of value -- states that value results from labor and can come from nowhere else.
If I produce something and an enterpreneur pays me $1.00, then sells
the good for $1.50, the extra 50 cents have been stolen from me. The
labor theory of value recognizes no distinction between profit and
plunder.
Ironically, the split resembles the one that developed between
individualist and left anarchism in the 19th century.
Cost the Limit of Price was a strong tie between individualist
and left anarchism, which viewed capitalism as institutionalized
force. But individualist anarchists approached capitalism differently
because their primary commitment was to a voluntary society. In
fact, Benjamin Tucker described the ideal society as "society by
contract." They concluded that if you wanted contract with an
enterpreneur, it was your business. Everyone had the right to make a
foolish contract and no one had the right to interfere in that
voluntary process.
The real difference was in their definitions of what constituted
aggression. To individualist anarchists, aggression is defined with
reference to property titles, especially the property one has in
oneself. Their definition of aggression rests on two concepts: title
and consent. Whose property is it?; and, does the owner agree to the
transaction?
By contrast, left anarchism contains the notion of economic
coercion; that is, even if a worker consents to a transaction, such
as a certain wage, the consent doesn't count because it was obtained
through duress. The economic conditions created by capitalism are the
equivalent of a gun pointed at his head.
The notion of economic coercion has implications for another key
conceptual difference: namely, how to define "justice". The left
anarchist approach to justice is 'ends oriented'; that is, it
provides a specific picture of what constitutes a just society. It
is a workers' society without a State.
The individualist anarchist approach to justice is 'means
oriented'. It provides no blueprint of the just social arrangement.
It says only "anything that is peaceful is just." Communist
communities could exist beside capitalist ones, as long as
membership in both was voluntary.
The two forms of anarchism also define the concept of class
differently. Left anarchism defines class in economic terms -- that
is, in relation to ownership of the means of production. You are a
worker or you are a capitalist. Individualist anarchists define
class in political terms -- that is, in relation to participation in
politics. You are a member of the economic class which lives through
voluntary exchange, or you are a member of the political class which
steals from the economic class. This is the classic liberal
distinction Franz Oppenheimer made between the economic and political
means.
Ironically, these same difference are splitting individualist
anarchism from current libertarianism. 20th century individualist
anarchism and libertarian both embraces the same economic theory:
capitalism. Yet they have come to different definitions of
'aggression', 'justice' and 'class'.
With regard to 'aggression': individualist anarchism is a call
for self-ownership and an absolute rejection of all but defensive
force. This leads to a rejection of electoral politics. Of political
office, the legal theoriest Lysander Spooner asked 'By what right
can one person occupy a position of power over another's life?' He
concluded that each individual has the right to delegate such power
over his or her own life to another person. But no one has the right
to delegate authority over the life of another.
Voltairine de Cleyre addressed this point as well:
"A body of voters cannot give into your charge any rights but
their own. By no possible jugglery of logic can they delegate the
exercise of any function which they themselves do not control. If any
individual on earth has a right to delegate his powers to whomsoever
he chooses, then every other individual has an equal right; and if
each has an equal right, then none can choose an agent for another,
without the other's consent."
More and more, the goal of libertarianism has changed from
dismantling the State to joining it. The new goal is to replace the
face behind the desk as though it were the face and not the position
of power that was the problem. To an individualist anarchist, the
problem is any face that assumes or seeks political power. And the
onus of proof is not on the anarchist to explain why he objects to
someone wanting vast power over his life; the onus is on pro-politics
people to explain how such power is justified.
Yet, to those in the LP, enabling a person into a position of
power over unconsenting third parties is not 'aggression'. This
constitutes a radically different definition of that term.
It also reflects a radically different approach to the concepts
of 'justice', and 'a class'. The LP reflects an 'ends oriented' view
of freedom: that is, freedom is defined by the end of electing the
proper people to political office. A just society will result from
achieving this end state. This goal is a rejection of the old
libertarian version of class theory which states you are a member of
the productive economic class, or of the parasitic political one.
It is commonly assumed that individualist anarchism and
libertarianism are two points along the same road, that we are fellow
travelers. I disagree. It is my belief that, if the LP is ever
successful, it will quickly turn on the individualist anarchists who
mistakenly believe themselves to be fellow travelers. They will
learn the same lesson that Russian anarchists learned from the
Bolsheviks when they took power: we are fellow travelers no more.

"A contributing editor to Liberty magazine, Wendy McElroy has
published widely in feminism beginning in 1983 with Freedom,
Feminism and the State (CATO) and most recently in 1995 with XXX: A
Woman's Right to Pornography (St. Martin's Press). Her articles have
appeared in such diverse publications as National Review and
Penthouse. Her 'day' job is writing and editing documentaries, some
of which have been recorded by Walter Cronkite, George C. Scott and
Harry Reasoner."

A JUROR'S CREED: As an American juror, I will exercise my 1000 year
old duty to arrive at a verdict, not just on the basis of the facts of
a particular case or instructions I am given, but through my ability
to reason, my knowledge of the Bill of Rights, and my individual
conscience. -- L. Neil Smith

Next to advance to the next article, or
Index to return to The Libertarian
Enterprise, Number 8, May, 1996.